Live and let die

In this ever-changing world in which we live in, one thing is certain: rapid advances in medical technology have come to stay. These improvements have made it possible to extend life expectancy unlike in any other time in history. But also, through the use of life-support systems, respirators, and feeding tubes, now it is now possible to keep comatose patients alive during for years, even decades. Do these devices sustain life or just prolong death?
This controversial question was raised again in our country a few weeks ago with the case of Marcelo Diez, an extreme sports lover who has been in a vegetative state since an crash accident ( an automobile accident?) left him in bed bedridden in 1994. His sisters made an appeal to the Supreme Court to have the patient's hydration and nutrition removed, but there was never a positive answer for them. “What Marcelo was is not there anymore. Let him die,” they repeat. To make things worse, the opinion of the Catholic Church is highly regarded in a country like ours. Bishop Virginio Bressanelli of Neuquén said that if Marcelo is disconnected from the respirator that keeps him alive “It would constitute euthanasia by omission and the crime of abandonment.” This is the perfect example of how a family drama can transcend its limits to become a state affair which involves lawyers, judges, bishops and a family who is denied the simple fact opportunity to give their loved one a good send-off.
Right-to-life activists often give the example of cases such as Terry Wallis, who revived in 2003 after spending 19 years old in a profound coma after a car accident. He had shown improvements by regaining some powers of speech but it was said that it was virtually impossible for someone to regain the full extent of their cognitive abilities. Terry Wallis turned fifty recently and although his relatives said that this was a miracle, he is still paralysed from the neck down.
All in all, every case is unique and has to be considered to its full extent. To answer the question posed at the beginning, we have to take into account the opinion of professionals to see if it is possible for comatose patients to regain full consciousness and lead a fulfilling life. But also it is vital to consider the opinion of the people who devote their lives to taking care of these patients. Advances in science should improve the quality of life of the human being, and not to interfere with the course of its normal process of decay.

Live and Let Die

In this ever changing world in which we live in, one thing is certain: rapid advances in medical technology are common place today have come to stay. These improvements have made it possible to extend life expectancy unlike in any other time in history. But Also, through the use of life-support systems, respirators, and feeding tubes now it is possible to keep comatose patients alive for during years; even decades. Do these devices sustain life of just prolong death?
This controversial question was raised again in our country weeks ago with the case of Marcelo Diez, an extreme sports lover who is in a vegetative state since a (crash accident sounds strange to me. I would say car crash or sports injury) crash accident left him in bed in 1994. His sisters made an appeal to the Supreme Court to have the patient's hydration and nutrition removed, but there was never a positive answer for them. “What Marcelo was is not there anymore. Let him die” they repeat. To make things worse, the opinion of the Catholic Church is highly regarded in a country like ours. Bishop Virginio Bressanelli of Neuquén said that if Marcelo is disconnected from the respirator that kept him alive “It would constitute euthanasia by omission and the crime of abandonment.” This is the perfect example on how a familiar drama transcends its limits to become a state affair which involves lawyers, judges, bishops and a family who is denied the simple fact to give their loved one a good send off.
Right-to-life activists often give the example of cases like Terry Wallis, who revived in 2003 after being 19 years old in a profound coma after a car accident. He had shown improvements by regaining some powers of speech, however, () it was said that it was virtually impossible for someone to regain the full extent of their cognitive abilities. Terry Wallis turned fifty recently and although his relatives said that this was a miracle he is still paralysed from the neck down.
All in all, every case is unique and has to be considered at its full extent. To answer the question posed at the beginning we have to take into account the opinion of professionals to see if it is possible for comatose patients to regain full consciousness and lead a fulfilling life. But Also it is vital to consider the opinion of the people who devote their lives to take care of the patients. Advances in science should improve the quality of life of the human being, and not to interfere with the course of its normal process of decay.

Live and let die

In this ever changing world in which we live, one thing is certain: rapid advances in medical technology have come to stay. These improvements have made it possible to extend life expectancy more than in any other time in history. But also, through the use of life-support systems, respirators and feeding tubes it is now possible to keep comatose patients alive for years, even decades. Do these devices sustain life of just prolong death?
This controversial question was raised again in our country weeks ago with the case of Marcelo Diez, an extreme sports lover who is in a vegetative state since a crash left him in bed in 1994. His sisters made an appeal to the Supreme Court to have the patient's hydration and nutrition removed, but there was never a positive answer for them. “What Marcelo was is not there anymore. Let him die” they repeat. To make things worse, the opinion of the Catholic Church is highly regarded in a country like ours. Bishop Virginio Bressanelli of Neuquén said that if Marcelo is disconnected from the respirator that kept him alive “It would constitute euthanasia by omission and the crime of abandonment”. This is the perfect example of how a familiar drama transcends its limits to become a state affair which involves lawyers, judges, bishops and a family who is denied the simple wish to give their loved one a good send off.
Right-to-life activists often give the example of cases like Terry Wallis, who revived in 2003 after being 19 years old in a profound coma after a car accident. He had shown improvements by regaining some powers of speech but it was said that it was virtually impossible for someone to regain the full extent of their cognitive abilities. Terry Wallis turned fifty recently and although his relatives said that this was a miracle he is still paralysed from the neck down.
All in all, every case is unique and has to be considered on its own merits. To answer the question posed at the beginning we have to take into account the opinion of professionals to see if it is possible for comatose patients to regain full consciousness and lead a fulfilling life. But also it is vital to consider the opinion of the people who devote their lives to taking care of the patients. Advances in science should improve the quality of life of the human being, and not to interfere with the course of its normal process of dying and death.